The Use and Reuse of Building Materials in the Archaeological Record

Emeritus Professor Windsor

9th January 2004

Abstract. This paper outlines a methodology for the analysis of the use and reuse of building materials observed in archaeological contexts and in standing buildings. Recent work which focuses on specific areas or time periods is reviewed but the need for a more general overview of how we can identify and analyse building materials and interpret their meaning is stressed. This paper assesses key methodologies for identifying building materials, for assessing volumes and spatial distribution of use and reuse and for characterizing use and reuse of building materials. A short case study illustrates some of the methods and approaches that the paper outlines.

1.Introduction

Despite recent developments in the analysis of building materials in archaeological contexts there is often little use made of building materials in archaeological contexts or use made of building materials as sources of evidence. Several case studies have reviewed the evidence for use and reuse of building materials over particular time periods (Eaton, 2000) or geographical areas (Stocker with Everson, 1990). These studies, and others like them, have demonstrated a range of methods for analysing building materials and for interpreting their significance. However there is, as yet no general methodological statement of how archaeologists can use building materials to support their interpretations of archaeological sites. This paper aims to provide such an overview in conjunction with a short case study that demonstrates some key methods and approaches.

2.Analysing Building Materials

There have been a number of detailed studies of quarrying and use of building stones and other material in Britain. One early major study was the work of Jope (1964) who focused on building stones in standing Anglo-Saxon buildings. This work made little mention of reuse. Later works looked at quarrying and use of building materials in the south of Roman Britain (Williams, 1971a; 1971b). This was followed by a range of papers put together in a book edited by Parsons (1990a). One of the most important of these contributions was the paper by Stocker with Everson (1990). This paper focused on the subject of reuse of building stone (with a geographical focus on Lincolnshire). As part of that work, three classes of reuse were identified and these are summarized in section 3 below. More recently Eaton (2000) has focused on the motives behind the reuse of Roman material in medieval buildings. All of this work has focused on Britain. However, much research has been conducted elsewhere but, as yet, no general methodology for the analysis and interpretation of the use and reuse of building materials has developed. This paper focuses on the principal approaches to the analysis of building materials as evidenced at archaeological sites, irrespective of their location. Initial examination of building materials enables the researcher to establish:

1.The source of materials

2.The context (date and place) of the use of the building materials

Identification of origin and context is useful, although its value is clearly limited. To extract more from the archaeological record it is necessary to expand upon these factors. That is, it would be useful to:

1.Establish how specific materials have been reused subsequent to their original use

2.Examine the spatial extent of the use and reuse of particular building materials

3.To note each period in which the reuse occurs (enabling a time line)

Each of these factors can be expanded further substantially. For example, building materials are selected according to their qualities and availabilities. In some instances, building stones were sought because of particular qualities. In many cases, however, the functionality of particular material will override the aesthetic qualities and durability of a particular material. Obviously, a building stone used initially because of particular aesthetic qualities may be reused at a later date purely for convenience and necessity.

An additional value to the examination of building materials, where it can be shown they are reused is that the presence of reused materials may indicate the presence of archaeological sites that are currently unknown. For example, if we find a hypocaust flue in the wall of a church which is located more than 25 kilometers from the nearest known structural Roman remains then this may be evidence of an unknown Roman villa (or other structure in the vicinity).

2.1.Methods for analysing building material types

The archaeologist has at their disposal a range of ways of identifying building material types. Stone or ceramics may be identified by eye. Petrological thin sectioning may be used to help source a particular material through its mineralogical composition. One of the main proponents of petrological analysis of building stones and ceramics has been D P S Peacock. Peacock's work includes extensive analyses of the source of marbles used in construction by the Romans. Thermoluminescence may be used to provide a broad date-range for fired ceramics and brick. Dendrochronology can be used to assist where wood exists in a whole or part of a structure.

2.2.Analysis of Volumes and spatial distribution

As noted elsewhere in this paper, it may be impossible to quantify sensibly use of a building material at a particular site. Where a building has been robbed extensively the best that we can usually hope to do is to develop a broad estimate of volumes. However, we may have limited (or non-existent) knowledge of how and where a particular material was used in a structure.

Studies that are concerned with the use of specific building materials over large areas can make use of a wide range of approaches for mapping and analyzing the spatial distribution of the use and reuse of building materials. Archaeologists have been quick to make use of the tools provided within Geographical Information Systems (GIS). The construction of spatial databases of building material types would be a worthwhile aim.

2.3.Interpretation of the presence of building materials

The building materials found at a particular site or the spread of use of a particular material may be considered a function of two factors: (1) availability and (2) survival. That is, if we assume limited availability of, for example, a particular stone then use of that material may indicate that those who constructed the building concerned had preferential access to the source.

3.Reuse of building materials

Unlike many artifacts studied by archaeologists building materials may be used and reused over hundreds or even thousands of years. Conventional archaeological wisdom has seen reuse of building materials as a function of economy and convenience. However, research over the last twenty years has begun to show that this is a rather simplistic view.

Stocker with Everson (1990) identified three different classes of use of building stone in particular. These were:

1.casual reuse: the primary concern of the builder was to obtain stone cheaply and easily.

2.functional reuse: again the concern was convenience but in this case fittings such as windows and doors were reused.

3.iconic reuse: in this case, monuments such as grave markers and altars were used, for the most part, as highly visible features of the new building.

These classes of reuse are useful but there are a number of sub-divisions or classes of reuse that can be identified. For example, although reuse in one case may be classed as casual it may be that the reused materials were employed systematically and in large volume in a new structure or component of a structure. That is, an entire wall of an English parish church may be constructed using regular blocks of a sandstone reused from a Roman villa. Alternatively, a particular building material may be found reused unsystematically and in only small quantities. That is, a wall may comprise a variety of different stones and other materials (for example, roof tiles) used in an apparently random manner.

A simple means of characterizing the nature of reuse of building stones was developed by Windsor (1998). This schema was to provide a simple indication of the nature and quantity of reuse at a particular site. In many cases we cannot weigh building material or use its volume as a means to comparing archaeological sites. Since most of the stone and other material at a particular site may have been robbed (leaving only the base of the foundations) it is impossible to calculate how much of a given material may have been used at a site. A scale of use signified by five numbered groups was developed as follows:

1.Random use, no evidence of quarrying - rough un-associated examples. On sites near to navigable waterways such 'random' use may imply that stone arrived at a site as ballast, although of course ballast may be of one stone type.

2.A number of samples - more than 10% in one structural unit like a wall but no evidence of use for a specific purpose - clearly mixed with other stone types.

3.May be widely used as group 4 below but no indication of selection for particular properties other than that it was amongst stone readily available in the vicinity.

4.Widely used component of one structure - may predominate (e.g., where used as a course or courses of a wall).

5.Stone type as a major element in one or more components of a structure - used for a specific purpose (e.g., facing of an entire wall). Quarried or reuse of material that was quarried (from original source) for use.

Although this schema referred to building stone it can be readily expanded to include building materials other than stone alone. This scale is intended only to provide a general guide to the nature of reuse as observable in what remains of a particular structure. These groups do not necessarily relate to use and reuse. If a large proportion of stone in a medieval building came from one disused building then it may seem that the stone could have been quarried from its original source for use in the medieval structure. The structural 'unit' comprises one component of a building - a wall or foundations or associated structure.

Eaton (2000) has stressed that the objective description of reuse should be distinguished from the subjective interpretation for reuse. For that reason he has presented a new model of reuse to replace that of Stocker with Everson (1990). Eaton divides reuse into two broad classes: practical reuse and meaningful reuse. These are interpretations of reuse, the first corresponds to notions of economy and convenience while the latter refers to the inherent (perceived) value of building material perhaps because of its age or esotericism. This approach allows any description of reuse (such as core or foundation stones, facing stones, architectural features or furnishing) to potentially represent either practical reuse or meaningful reuse.

3.1.Identifying reuse

It is not always straightforward to distinguish 'original' use of a building material from reuse of a building material. In many cases, a mixture of different building materials (for example, roof tiles) that clearly pre-date the structure of which they are part is, obviously, indicative of reuse.

The key to identifying reuse is context. That is, the presence of roof tiles in the middle of a wall indicates reuse as would the presence of an architectural feature such as a door lintel in a part of a building that had never been designed to be a doorway. Eaton (2000) has provided a useful summary of features to look for in identifying Roman spoila in medieval buildings. These include petrology, block form, presence of ceramic building materials (CBM), uneven patterns of burning and weathering, mechanical features, surface treatment, anomolousarchitectural features and inscriptions and carvings. Some of these are fairly self-explanatory, but others require explanation. In terms of petrology, where different materials are used to serve the same function without any obvious pattern (for example, stone facing comprises differently shaped blocks of different sizes) then this is evidence of reuse. Another key indicator of reuse is the (visible) presence of mechanical features such as dowels and clamp holes. If such features were present in primary (as opposed to secondary) use it is unlikely that they would be visible. Although this example referred to a particular case (reuse of Roman material in medieval Britain) the general ideas could be applied in a more general context.

3.2.Tracing use and reuse

While it is easy to map the spatial distribution of a particular building material it is sometimes possible also to map the movement of building material as it was used and reused subsequently at other sites. For example, various authors have identified Roman material from a particular site that has been reused in a nearby structure such as a medieval church (an example of this is outlined in the case study below). In some cases it may even be possible to state with some certainty that all uses of a particular stone after a certain date must represent reuse. This may be the case if a primary resource can be shown to have been exhausted (for all practical purposes). In some cases, certain sources of stone were clearly not quarried after a certain period and they occur in large volumes in structures dating after this period (Eaton, 2000, cites cases where quarries opened in the Roman period were not used in the medieval period). A more restricted case is where an intertidal outcrop can be shown to have become inundated after a certain date (the case study reviews such a situation).

3.3.Motivation behind reuse

The main contribution of the work of Windsor (1993a; 1995) and Eaton (2000) is to help move the focus from pure description of reuse to an attempt to address the issue of why building materials were reused. Windsor (1993a) noted the potential in linking evidence for the reuse of building stone to the motives behind that reuse. In particular, the report stressed that this evidence could be used to support (or refute) documentary evidence where this exists. Eaton (2000) attempted to model the labour costs of quarrying stone or reusing stone from existing structures and transporting this reused stone by land or water. Eaton's study focused on the reuse of Roman material in medieval buildings in central Northumberland. Eaton demonstrated that there was a decline in the distances travelled to obtain material for reuse through time. This was considered to be due, in part, to the establishment of settlements at large distances from Roman foundations. Eaton expanded his study to consider the labour costs incurred in quarrying stone and in obtaining it from existing structures. Three different scenarios were considered:

1.Reuse, with building material transported over land

2.Reuse, with building material transported by waterways

3.Quarrying of 'new' stone

This study focused on contrasting the costs of obtaining building material for construction during the medieval (Norman) period at Lydney while considering Chepstow (located about 21 km away) as a possible source of reusable building material. Several key factors were considered including the road system, the velocity and capacity of Norman carts, navigable waterways and the form, capacity and velocity of cargo boats. Eaton concluded that, following his criteria, the cheapest means of acquiring building materials was to reuse material from Chepstow and to transport it by water. The most costly option was to reuse material and to transport it by land. Obviously, as various authors in other contexts have stressed in archaeological contexts there is a need to consider modes of transport in the movement of any commodity.

4.Case Study

In this paper, a case study will be used to illustrate some of the ways in which it is possible to analyse building materials found at archaeological sites. Through this case study, some key issues and specific problems will be addressed through a case study which focuses on a particular limestone.

4.1.Study area and data

The case study examines the use and reuse of an Alveolina limestone from the Mixon reefs, Selsey Bill, West Sussex. The Mixon reefs are part of the Selsey formation of the fossiliferous Eocene deposits in the Bracklesham Beds. The limestone from the Mixon has a very distinctive texture and is yellow in colour. The microfossils Nummulites and Alveolina are abundant in these deposits (Curry, King, King and Stinton, 1977, 249, Unit S11 the Clibs).

Mixon Limestone was sought in an area bounded by the Ordnance Survey grid references (SZ) 460 900 - (TQ) 510 130 - an area of 2,000 square kilometers. This area was selected partly due to restrictions on time available but more importantly on the basis of published work there was little reason to suspect that Mixon limestone would be found outside that area in anything but tiny quantities with a highly erratic distribution.

4.2.Discussion and interpretation

In the Roman period Mixon limestone was used for facing the west wing of Fishbourne 'palace', for wall courses (Chichester, north wall and city walls north of east gate) and as a foundation stone (Chichester, North Street; Sidlesham Bath House etc.). The reuse of Mixon from existing structures is explored below. This survey is not intended to be exhaustive, rather it is an attempt to show how the presentation of building stone data can be relevant to archaeological study.

The earliest known use of Mixon limestone as a building material is that in the west wing of Fishbourne palace. The construction is dated to about 75 A.D. (Cunliffe, 1971). The building programme would seem to have served as the impetus for the opening of several sources of building stone in central southern England. The first or second century use as a foundation stone for the bath house at Sidlesham represents another early use (Collins et al.,1973). Mixon limestone was widely used in the urban centre of Chichester (Noviomagus Regnensium). Use at Chichester is not well dated but it seems reasonable to suppose that Mixon limestone, exploited by at least the late first century, was utilised there at an early stage. There are several instances where Mixon limestone is recorded in the town walls, construction is dated to the late second century or early third century (Down, 1988,53).

Due to the survival of medieval structures it is not surprising that there is more widespread recorded use of Mixon limestone in the Medieval period. The Mixon wall footings of the Norman tower at 'the Mound' in Church Norton date to probably the late 11th or 12th century (Aldsworth and Garnett 1981). Mixon foundations under the parish church of Pagham date to the 11th century or before (Freke 1980, 247). The castle at Tote Copse in Aldingbourne dates to the 12th century or before and Mixon is used widely (Brewster and Brewster 1969, 178). Mixon is used in the 12th-13th century churches of Church Norton and Fishbourne.

Parsons has noted the lack of evidence for the continuous use of quarry sites in Britain from the Roman period to the Middle Ages (Parsons 1990, 13-14). The Mixon reef is no exception. The use of Mixon limestone at Aldsworth castle and the Norman tower at Church Norton, Selsey, may illustrate the last stages of quarrying from the reef. Aldsworth castle may also constitute the first extensive evidence of quarrying since the Roman period. Clearly the use of stone as a building material declined in Britain after the Roman occupation. Though the lack of excavation on the Selsey peninsula and extensive erosion, coupled with the effects of subduction along the coastal plain (Akeroyd 1972), especially south eastern Britain, combine to obscure traces of the use of Mixon limestone between the Roman occupation and the 11th century. Since the Roman period vast tracts of low lands have been lost to inundation.

5. Summary

However, although there is substantial potential for extracting information from building materials found at archaeological sites and in standing buildings, we should remember that we cannot usefully analyse building materials in isolation. That is, building materials are one form of evidence and they are likely to play a small role, but an important one, in the development of our understanding of past societies.

6.Conclusion

After the collection of the data from all available sources, it may be possible to create a time line of the usage of a particular material, or materials. Analysis of the use of building materials in this way may provide information on a range of factors including social changes and prevailing human requirements at the time of use or reuse.

Thus stone used in the Roman period in southern Britain could potentially be traced to reuse in an early church. This might indicate that the prevailing social circumstances required that the materials were probably only accessible to those who had available resources for its possible purchase and removal and ability to have a new building constructed. In this example the church would have been the local predominant power, because it demonstrates through their access and use of the materials, that they had the required resources.

Further research may uncover whether there was reuse at the same time and/or later of these materials for use in farms, walls, or even castles. Each possibility leads to further clarification of the period being examined. Clearly where reuse appears in city walls it can be extrapolated that the prevailing social structure was in need of protection. From whom can be examined from the perspectives available. For example a sea or river city defended by walls, may at low tide, after an attack, reuse the stones from a ship's ballast, and any other useful materials found, within the walls, to simply reinforce the walls and or gates within the city buildings.

Under the assumption of restricted or preferential access we might be able to trace local priorities for construction. That is, a priority may have been construction of a city wall at one period but at another period new housing may be considered more important. In such a scenario, if the city wall was dismantled because the threat of invasion has disappeared the materials used in the walls may be later found used in construction of some house. So by following the building materials in one site, and comparing and matching them to another site, would allow a composite picture to develop. After examination of hundreds of sites, the picture through time would help to enable a history of use and reuse of building materials to develop through use of the methods stated above.

For this methodology to work, the different sciences available to an archaeologist must be used to the full. From petrological analysis to Dendrochronology, every aspect of each material and its original source must be researched, through to a final survey of the area of study, to the last use of each material. This can be simplified in certain areas where a localised source was used and can be taken as the main material to be traced through sites. Only when a site has none of this material would it be necessary to begin to seek another material to continue to find a common use or reuse within a single site or more, to link the chain together.

The resulting picture using factual data develops into a continual time line which could help to reinforce existing historical documents, and legends and turn them into historical fact.

7. Future work

It cannot be stressed strongly enough, that much data has as yet been left undiscovered, through the thorough usage of this methodology, it is hoped that a small part could be played in achieving the required information which may be used to enhance archaeological and historical records.

Table 1. Use and reuse of Mixon limestone.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

ALDINGBOURNE; Tote Copse Castle. Well; well lining; 12thC. or before; O/R?; 5; Brewster & Brewster 1969, 178

__________________________________________________________________________________________

ALDINGBOURNE; Tote Copse Castle. Keep wall; keep wall; 12thC. or before; O/R?; 5; Brewster & Brewster 1969, 178

__________________________________________________________________________________________

ALDINGBOURNE; Tote Copse Castle. Garderobe; garderobe walls; 12thC. or before; O/R?; 5; Brewster & Brewster 1969, 178

__________________________________________________________________________________________

ALDINGBOURNE; Tote Copse Castle. Bailey; bailey walls; 12thC. or before; O/R?; 5; Brewster & Brewster 1969, 178

__________________________________________________________________________________________

ALDINGBOURNE; Tote Copse Castle. Plinth of the keep; plinth of keep; 12th C. or before; O/R?; 5; Brewster & Brewster 1969, 178

__________________________________________________________________________________________

BOSHAM; Church; walls; walls; R; 1; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

BOSHAM; Harbour facing walls; walls; recent; R; 1; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

BOXGROVE; Priory; walls; 12th C.; O?; 2; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

CHICHESTER, Franklin place; Well; well lining; Roman-?; O; 5; Down & Rule 1971, 9 (No. 5)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

CHICHESTER, North Street 3,4 & 5; ‘massive monument foundations’; base? for a statue or altar?; Roman-?; O; 5; Down & Rule 1971, 16, 129 (No. 73)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

?CHICHESTER, North of East Gate; City Walls; walls; Roman-?; O; 4; Down & Rule 1971, 7 (No. 2)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

?CHICHESTER, 104, 106 & 108 Orchard Street; North wall; lower course of wall; 2nd C?; O?; 3/4; Down & Rule 1971, 150

__________________________________________________________________________________________

?CHICHESTER, North Street; Wall of Roman North Gate?; wall; Roman-?; O; 5; Down et al 1981, 23

__________________________________________________________________________________________

CHICHESTER, Cattlemarket; fragment; fragment; ?; ?; Down & Magilton 1993, 165

__________________________________________________________________________________________

CHICHESTER; Wall foundation, Central Car Park, David Grieg Site; foundations; 4th C.; O; 5; Down et al

1974, 113

__________________________________________________________________________________________

CHICHESTER, Cathedral Precincts; Precinct walls; walls; mixed; R; 1/2; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

CHICHESTER, North Street; SPCK Bookshop; wall; wall; R 1/2 Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

DONNINGTON; Farm barn; walls; walls; R; 4/5; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

DONNINGTON; Church of St George; wall; wall; R; 1; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

DONNINGTON; Churchyard wall at Church of St George; wall; wall; R 3; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

DONNINGTON; Manor House; wall base; recent; R; 1; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

FISHBOURNE; Church of St Peter and St Mary; walls; R; 4/5; Reuse from the west wing of Fishbourne palace?; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

FISHBOURNE; palace; Facing of the west wing (waterworn, faced and squared); Flavian c. 75 ; O; 5; Cunliffe 1971a&b

__________________________________________________________________________________________

FISHBOURNE; palace of timber building 5; Veranda (waterworn boulders); Flavian c.75; O; 3; Cunliffe 1971a

__________________________________________________________________________________________

FISHBOURNE; ?; ?; 2nd/3rd C.; R?; ?; Rudkin 1986

__________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGHAM; Parish Church of St Thomas the Martyr, foundations under church; facing of wall; 11th C. or before; R?; 3; Freke 1980, 247

__________________________________________________________________________________________

PORTCHESTER; ‘Saxon shore fort’; wall; late 3rd C.; R?; 1; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SELSEY; Church of St Peter; walls; walls; 12th-13th C. & 1864-66; R?; 2; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SELSEY, Church Norton, ‘The Mound’; Norman Tower, 9 feet wide, tower 31 ft sq; wall footings; late 11th-12th C. O/R?; 5; Aldsworth & Garnett 1981

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SELSEY, Church Norton; Church; walls; 12th-13th C.; R? 4/5; H. Wallace

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SELSEY, Church Norton; Churchyard wall; wall; -; R 4/5; H. Wallace

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SHOREHAM, Old Erringham; Quernstone; quernstone; Saxon contexts; Holden 1976, 317

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SIDLESHAM; Bath house irregular pieces; foundations; 1st-2nd C.; O 4-; Collins, Wilson & Wilson 1973, 2-3

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SIDLESHAM; Roadside wall; wall; -; R 4-; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SOUTHAMPTON; Bargate; wall; -; R 1; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SOUTHAMPTON; Nr. Dolphin hotel; wall; -; R 1; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SOUTHAMPTON; Defensive walls; wall; -; R 1; Author

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr Ian Freal and Mr Sidney Fogg of Littlehampton Museum for taking the time to find specimens of building stone in the museum collections so that I could examine them. Mr Hume Wallace freely provided details of his work on the Mixon reef and other coastal sources of building stone. Mr P. Latchford, warden of the parish church of St Peter of Selsey, kindly showed me around the church and suggested some avenues for research. Richard Myerscough, for updating my knowledge of available methodologies. Mr P. Jacobs was of great assistance in Southampton and as my text editor. Finally I would like to thank Professor David Gray, Fox Foundation, for editing this work. Miss M. Prior and Mr S. Johnson, without whom this work would not have been possible. I would also like to thank the staff at the Hartley Library, University of Southampton, whom gave me unlimited help and access as well as enabling photocopies without queues as needed.

Naturally all comments made are entirely the responsibility of the author as are

any errors contained within the text.

Professor Ian Jeffrey Windsor

Director

The Fox Foundation for Combined Science

Southampton

Hampshire

9th January 2004

References

Blagg, T. F. C. (1990) Building Stone in Roman Britain. In D. Parsons (Ed.) Stone: Quarrying and Building in England AD 43-1525. Chichester: Phillimore in association with The Royal Archaeological Institute, 33-50.

Buckland, P.C and Sadler, J. (1990) Ballast and Building Stone: A Discussion. In D. Parsons (Ed.) Stone: Quarrying and Building in England AD 43-1525. Chichester: Phillimore in association with The Royal Archaeological Institute, 114-125.

Cunliffe, B.W. Et al. (1971a) Excavations at Fishbourne 1961-1969 Vol. I: The Site. Society of Antiquaries Research Report, 26. London.

Cunliffe, B.W. Et al. (1971b) Excavations at Fishbourne 1961-1969. Vol. II: The Finds. Society of Antiquaries Research Report, 27. London.

Curry, D., King, A., King, C. and Stinton, F. (1977) The Bracklesham Beds (Eocene) of Bracklesham and Selsey, Sussex. Proceedings of the Geological Association, 88 (4), 243-254.

Eaton, T. (2000) Plundering the Past: Roman Stonework in Medieval Britain. Stroud: Tempus Publishing.

Hampshire and Wight Trust (1994) Research Projects: The Mixon Reef. Annual Report 1993/94, 8.

Hudson, J. D. and Sutherland, D. S. (1990) The geological description and identification of building stones: examples from Northamptonshire. In D. Parsons (Ed.) Stone: Quarrying and Building in England AD 43-1525. Chichester: Phillimore in association with The Royal Archaeological Institute, 16-32

Parsons, D. (Ed.) (1990a) Stone: Quarrying and Building in England AD 43-1525. Chichester: Phillimore in association with The Royal Archaeological Institute.

Parsons, D. (1990b) Review and Prospect: The Stone Industry in Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval England. In D. Parsons (Ed.) Stone: Quarrying and Building in England AD 43-1525. Chichester: Phillimore in association with The Royal Archaeological Institute, 1-15

Parsons, D. (1991) Stone. In J. Blair and N. Ramsay (Eds.) English Medieval Industries: Craftsmen, Techniques, Products. London: The Hambledon Press.

Stocker, D with Everson, P. (1990) Rubbish Recycled: A Study of the Re-Use of Stone in Lincolnshire. In D. Parsons (Ed.) Stone: Quarrying and Building in England AD 43-1525. Chichester: Phillimore in association with The Royal Archaeological Institute, 83-101

Williams, J. H. (1971a) Roman building materials in south-east England. Britannia, 2, 166-195.

Williams, J. H. (1971b) Roman building materials in the south-west. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society, 90, 95-119.

Windsor, I. J. (1993a) Examining the use of intertidal rocks, quarries and reefs, for building materials from the first century to the nineteenth century in east Dorset, Hampshire, West Sussex and the Isle of Wight, from the Pullar Bank, the Church Reefs/Rocks, the Mixon Reef, the Streets/Strets and from the Langstone Harbour Reef. First Interim Project C. Report to Professor D. P. S. Peacock, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, for the Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology, 10th September 1993 (written as G. Pearson).

Windsor, I. J. (1993b) Second Interim Report, Project C. 2nd December 1993 (written as G. Pearson).

Windsor, I. J. (1994a) The Mixon Reef and other interesting intermaritime zone rock outcrops; their use and reuse as a building material. Third Interim Report, Project C. 12th July 1994 (written as G. Pearson).

Windsor, I. J. (1994b) Fieldwork, France. Fourth Interim Report, Project C. 14th August 1994 (written as G. Pearson).

Windsor, I. J. (1995) The Use and Reuse of Building Stone in the Archaeological Record. Unpublished BA Dissertation, University of Southampton (written as G. Pearson).

Windsor, I. J. (1998-2003 continuous online updates) The use and reuse of building stone: an archaeological survey. Http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ian.windsor/online1.htm